On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, David Brownell wrote:"simple"? What I had was a lot simpler. So, I want to set gpio 5 on a pcf9557 extender. cat 1 > /sys/class/gpio/pcf9557-0:0 But now I can't do this anymore, it has to be harder. So how do I do it? It doesn't seem very considerate to ignore the real use cases of the person who wrote the code to begin with. I have a JTAG interface implemented via GPIOs. With my system, one can see the gpios used in sysfs with the proper labels (TCK, TDO, TDI, etc.). This is very helpful for people connecting something to the interface to know they have the write gpio lines connected. What's the point of allowing one to label gpio lines if it's not going to be easy to see? It also means that if they have trouble getting what their connecting to work, they can always control the line via sysfs and see with a probe that it changes. They can raise TRST (which they know is the right line from the label) and see the system reset. Adding gpio_export() calls to the kernel source and recompiling and re-flashing just isn't going to happen for a large portion of users. Why can't the gpio lines just show up when something requests them? So if a driver is already using gpio 23, then there is no way to see it in sysfs, since the gpio_request() will fail? So if a driver was already using gpio 23 and you wanted to look at it from userspace, you'll free it from both sysfs and the driver that was using it when you're done? You could say the same about 90% of the writable files in sysfs. --
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 004/196] Chinese: add translation of SubmittingPatches |
| David Newall | Re: Slow DOWN, please!!! |
| Andrew Morton | Re: Linux 2.6.21-rc4 |
git: | |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Dale Farnsworth | Re: [PATCH 01/39] mv643xx_eth: reverse topological sort of functions |
